Crime on the way down?

ACT Policing has continued to experience a decline in offences across the board according to the latest quarterly CrimeStatistics for 2013, which show a 14 per cent decrease across the ACT when compared with the same period in 2012.

Weston Creek led the way with a crime decrease of 39 per cent when comparing the January-March quarter this year with the same period last year. Offences in Weston Creek declined from 790 reported in (Jan-Mar) 2012 to 482 in 2013.

Tuggeranong also saw a significant decrease for the same period, with reported offences down 27 per cent (from 2226 to 1614). The first quarter decline continues a five-year downward trend in reported crimes and offences in Tuggeranong.
Of the seven ACT regions defined by the CrimeStatistics databank, the Inner North was the only area to experience an increase (1 per cent), with 2755 reported in 2013, up from 2720 in Jan-March 2012 .

However, while the Inner North had a slight increase overall, it did experience a decrease in most other offences such as robbery (-81 per cent; 21 reports in 2012 to 4 in 2013), assault (-33 per cent; 183 reports in 2012 to 122 in 2013), burglary (-35 per cent; 162 reports in 2012 to 106 in 2013), and motor vehicle theft (-36 per cent; 77 reports in 2012 to 49 in 2013).

Like Tuggeranong, overall offence rates in the Inner North are trending down, decreasing 27 per cent in the last five years with 15,668 offences reported in 2008 and 11,369 in 2012.

Superintendent of ACT Policing Intelligence and Crime Prevention Cath Grassick said although it is pleasing to see most offences are continuing to trend down it is important not to get complacent when it comes to combating crime.

“Crime is cyclical and although we have enjoyed a positive result in the past three months it is important ACT Policing is ready to adapt and evolve in order to meet any new challenges which arise in the future,” Superintendent Grassick said.

“However, it is pleasing to see through collection and analysis of crime statistics the positive effect initiatives such as the Alcohol Crime Targeting Team and Property Crime Reduction Strategy implemented by ACT Policing in conjunction with the ACT Government, has had on crime in the ACT.”

“ACT Policing’s Crime Prevention and Intelligence portfolios also work to develop strategies on emerging crime issues in the Canberra community. For example, District Intelligence Officers allocate tasks to align with station specific priorities and identify crime ‘hot-spots’ which address issues at a local community level.”

According to the stats there has been a significant decline in robbery.burglary and theft since 2009 which is good news.The assault figures are down about 15% for the Jan-Mar 2013 period compared to previous years.The yearly figures reflect that there was approx a 10% drop in assaults in 2012 compared to the previous three years which while positive is still way too high.

So all in all one would have to agree with Supt of ACT Policing Intelligence and Crime Prevention Cath Grassick’s comment that although it is pleasing to see most offences are continuing to trend down it is important not to get complacent when it comes to combating crime.

It made me laugh when I read this article in the Canberra Crimes, especially when they were talking about the spike in crime in the inner north. Reading the real figures though the spike was 1%. Seems more like a blip rather than a spike, but guess it got the headline they wanted.

I have mentioned this a few times , crime has never been lower that is now , especially murders. Not that eases anything for relatives. But seriously , you couldnt get a safer place without cotton wool around it. Bundah, nothing will be good enough with crime rates, Im not convinced you aren’t a troll , a real one under the kingsway bridge. If all crime goes away, you wont have anything to feel like an authority on, albeit an obvious would-be as it stands. And then I will have no one to try and ignore but for the fact they must be the biggest twat on earth that has to be corrected again, and again, and again. Its kinda like I wanna hate you but you are too much a dumbass that you fit into the misfortunate space where being sorry for you is the order. Die,

Robbery is down because there is nothing worth stealing, everything is now too cheap to have a second hand market – maybe you can get a few hundred for an ipad but most people will just buy a new one anyway. Computers and cameras have no second hand value. etc. I mean organised people who steal cars and have a good distribution system can still make it worthwhile, but taking something and putting it on ebay or cash converters or down the pub doesnt give a result that is worth the ‘risk’.

Plus, of course, despite all of the doom and gloom talk, Canberra has very low unemployment so there shouldnt be too many people stealing for money (other than drugs, of course).

Assault/[ersonal violence is really the only crime that isnt related to economics, so its good to see that is dropping. If only drugs were, if not fully legalised, at least medicalised (available under prescription), then the need to steal to fund drugs would also go away.

But giving opiates for operations is fine; giving opiates because someone has a different kind of medical problem, such as addiction – well, tough

‘Weston Creek led the way with a crime decrease of 39 per cent when comparing the January-March quarter this year with the same period last year. Offences in Weston Creek declined from 790 reported in (Jan-Mar) 2012 to 482 in 2013′.

I would be interested to know if the AFP can attribute this decrease in crime to the taking out of commission one or two little bastards who have worked Weston Creek over for momths?

Realise your goods may never be recovered. I really dont know why people arent more concerned with this. I might FOI on stats for people charged with receiving stolen goods.

Ive been wondering about the recovery of stolen goods, or some form of compensation, too.

If a scumbag burgler is caught and pleads guilty, why does he still have the protection of the law in not having to giving info to the police regarding the whereabouts of the stolen property he stashed or sold to another scumbag?

Does anyone know if it is possibe to sue the scumbags in order to recover the stolen property and the cost of repairing damage, or sue for the value of replacing the stolen property and any required repairs? I know its probably not worth it given these a$$holes usually have nothing, but when they plead guilty they admit to the crime, and after they have been rehabilitated and re-enter society as a productive member of the community, the victims should be able to get some of their wages or dole until the debt is payed. I for one would like to see the pain of the consequences continue well beyond the completion of their custodial holiday.

Sure you can sue them. Do you really think they have any money? No court is going to order someone to pay a debt out of their dole. And most people who have gone to gaol find it hard to get a job…

Plus, presumably you are insured which is why no one bothers. Its a lot of effort to recover your excess.

But if you have a rich bored inner south boy break into your house, go for it.

Thats pretty much what I thought.

It just shits me that weither they are caught or not, plead guilty or not and are convicted or not, they still get away with the goods and the profit from their sale, then our insurance premiums go up, and our tax dollars pay for their defence. Not only should they answer to society for their naughty ways, they should also answer directly to their victims and if they claim to be ‘sorry’ for their offences, should be made, by the courts, to somehow atone for their offences directly to the victim, after all the victim suffers more than ‘society’ from these selfish acts.

Also, insurance is all good and well for your plasma TV and Xbox game collection but some things cannot be replaced with money. No it wasnt a rich kid that did over my place, it was one of our noble Indigenous people

It’s laughable when authorities try to link decreases in crime with something they did.

Much of the variation is just randomness. Of the variation that is systematic, the vast majority of crimes are a function of economic conditions, particularly the unemployment rate (and it’s not just property crimes either – alcohol-related violent offences are generally higher when economic conditions are bad).

It takes massive, massive variations in police resources to produce observable and statistically significant reductions in crime, once economic factors are accounted for.

Also, these changes in resourcing often work both ways – there is a deterrent effect, but equally more cops on the beat result in more crimes being detected/prosecuted (crime rate goes up).

So a reduction in crime rates can be as attributable to reductions in detection rates, rather than reductions in crimes actually committed. But hey don’t let logic get in the way of warm fuzzies.

It’s laughable when authorities try to link decreases in crime with something they did.

I don’t disagree with everything you say – in fact, I agree with a lot of it – but the sentence quoted is itself laughable, in my opinion.

Locking up recidivist offenders, especially burglars, car thiefs etc can have an immediate and noticeable effect on crime rates. In other words, something the authorities did (catching and locking up recidivist property offenders) is linked to a decrease in crime.

Having said that, it is easy to put a positive spin on these kinds of stats, for example:

If crime rates are down: The police are doing a great job.
If crime rates up: More people are reporting crime due to police being more accessable.

It’s laughable when authorities try to link decreases in crime with something they did.

I don’t disagree with everything you say – in fact, I agree with a lot of it – but the sentence quoted is itself laughable, in my opinion.

Locking up recidivist offenders, especially burglars, car thiefs etc can have an immediate and noticeable effect on crime rates. In other words, something the authorities did (catching and locking up recidivist property offenders) is linked to a decrease in crime.

Having said that, it is easy to put a positive spin on these kinds of stats, for example:

If crime rates are down: The police are doing a great job.
If crime rates up: More people are reporting crime due to police being more accessable.

A simplistic example, but you see what I mean.

I agree that locking up recidivist offenders who are known to be prolific offenders will often result in a drop in crime rates.One example from yesteryear were the Lill brothers who were notorious for their break-ins.I recall that one of them(Paul i think) admitted breaking into almost 300 homes in a 6 month period in order to fund his heroin habit.In fact back in the late ’90′s i drove Paul from Bundah to Mawson in the cab.During the trip i pulled up at the traffic lights at Yamba/Mawson Drive and he excused himself,opened the door and vomited on the road,much to my relief and we continued to the destination with no further incident.A true gentleman one might say.

It’s laughable when authorities try to link decreases in crime with something they did.

I don’t disagree with everything you say – in fact, I agree with a lot of it – but the sentence quoted is itself laughable, in my opinion.

Locking up recidivist offenders, especially burglars, car thiefs etc can have an immediate and noticeable effect on crime rates. In other words, something the authorities did (catching and locking up recidivist property offenders) is linked to a decrease in crime.

Having said that, it is easy to put a positive spin on these kinds of stats, for example:

If crime rates are down: The police are doing a great job.
If crime rates up: More people are reporting crime due to police being more accessable.

A simplistic example, but you see what I mean.

I agree that locking up recidivist offenders who are known to be prolific offenders will often result in a drop in crime rates.One example from yesteryear were the Lill brothers who were notorious for their break-ins.I recall that one of them(Paul i think) admitted breaking into almost 300 homes in a 6 month period in order to fund his heroin habit.In fact back in the late ’90′s i drove Paul from Bundah to Mawson in the cab.During the trip i pulled up at the traffic lights at Yamba/Mawson Drive and he excused himself,opened the door and vomited on the road,much to my relief and we continued to the destination with no further incident.A true gentleman one might say.

Bundah you agree with what ever you read on a high-five giving nerds blog and then think would sound good to regurgitate here by you. Now I love an engaging story about a high functioning cab driver and vomit as much as the next person. But I feel you may have just been lonely when you wrote it so I ll forgive you. But in future, those treasured stories should be written just for you and left inside your wonderful and vast emptiness that is your head. Even people who lost loved ones to murder , unsolved even, do not piss and moan, and invent computer game story arcs,(most of what you say qualifies as this) the way you do. I would hate to see you dealing with anything even remotely close to this. But good work on that Cab driving story. Really spoke to me, who would have thought in this age someone would vomit out of a moving vehicle. When will the madness end eh. Im just glad I always tip my cabbies.

It’s laughable when authorities try to link decreases in crime with something they did.

I don’t disagree with everything you say – in fact, I agree with a lot of it – but the sentence quoted is itself laughable, in my opinion.

Locking up recidivist offenders, especially burglars, car thiefs etc can have an immediate and noticeable effect on crime rates. In other words, something the authorities did (catching and locking up recidivist property offenders) is linked to a decrease in crime.

Not arguing with the direction of the variation, but the magnitude.

Locking up recidivists is one of the few examples of policies that have been providnig to reduce crimes rates but I would note that a) the effect is very small compared to the other drivers and b) this simply does not occur in ACT so academic at best.

I mean hey I would love to see the regression analysis and in particular the control variables they used to support their claim that their focus on x,y,z conduct is reducing crime (as opposed to general economic conditions or random variation) but I given the other research in this area I strongly suspect this doesn’t exist and the claims are in fact spurious.

It’s laughable when authorities try to link decreases in crime with something they did.

I don’t disagree with everything you say – in fact, I agree with a lot of it – but the sentence quoted is itself laughable, in my opinion.

Locking up recidivist offenders, especially burglars, car thiefs etc can have an immediate and noticeable effect on crime rates. In other words, something the authorities did (catching and locking up recidivist property offenders) is linked to a decrease in crime.

Not arguing with the direction of the variation, but the magnitude.

Locking up recidivists is one of the few examples of policies that have been providnig to reduce crimes rates but I would note that a) the effect is very small compared to the other drivers and b) this simply does not occur in ACT so academic at best.

I mean hey I would love to see the regression analysis and in particular the control variables they used to support their claim that their focus on x,y,z conduct is reducing crime (as opposed to general economic conditions or random variation) but I given the other research in this area I strongly suspect this doesn’t exist and the claims are in fact spurious.

“this simply does not occur in ACT so academic at best.”

I may have misread you, but if you’re saying recidivist property offenders don’t get locked up, you couldn’t be more wrong. There are some prolific offenders under lock and key as we speak, some of whom won’t be out for years.

You would be amazed at the spike in burglaries when certain offenders are released.

I may have misread you, but if you’re saying recidivist property offenders don’t get locked up, you couldn’t be more wrong. There are some prolific offenders under lock and key as we speak, some of whom won’t be out for years.

You would be amazed at the spike in burglaries when certain offenders are released.

Fair enough, could be sample bias on my part – all the stories I read here and elsewhere involve serious repeat offenders, doing what they do over and over again, fronting up to court and being handed a slap on the wrist, and released on bail. Maybe it’s these exceptional stories that get all the media/commentariat attention but, for the most part, recidivists get handed increasingly serious penalties to reflect their general lack of responsiveness to normal deterrents.